8 ms·

Here's a funny weird little fact. The IAEA inspectors and even Mr. Grossi himself have been documenting and even 'hearing' shelling 'on a regular basis' while p

Here's a funny weird little fact. The IAEA inspectors and even Mr. Grossi himself have been documenting and even 'hearing' shelling 'on a regular basis' while present on the ZNPP premises. But they've never attributed the shelling to either of the parties, not once. [1] Isn't that unusual given how quick all the officials and media are to blame just one side of the conflict (we know which one) for everything, with or without evidence? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aiaea.org+znpp+shelling https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aiaea.org+znpp+shellin...

jacquesm 3y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
- meeuwer 3y ago
  > ... it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. If, for example, someone phrased their political argument as a series of questions — but provided sources to back up said questions, or has raised logical arguments in said questions — then it is not enough to dismiss the argument as "just asking questions". So, the IAEA and Grossi either can't establish where the shells are fired from (hard to believe given the prolonged and intensive nature of the shelling and the amount of evidence) or are hesitant / not allowed to incriminate the party they believe is responsible.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    No, they can but it isn't relevant. Let me spell it out for you: no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant.
    - andreygrehov 3y ago
      > no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant If we apply the same logic of no A : no B, then "Russian invasion" would be the B in some other equation, e.g., no A : no Russian invasion. What would that A be?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        You're not making any sense.
        andreygrehov 3y ago
        You sound fairly confident in all of your responses, but as soon as the question leads to anything less convenient, you bail. I encourage you to spend less time watching/reading the mass media news.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, god forbid someone is actually informed. > I encourage you to spend less time watching/reading the mass media news. Thank you for your life advice.
    - meeuwer 3y ago
      First, no need to be rude. Second, a certain Mr. Stoltenberg would like to add a prequel to your non sequitur: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xEBwBhds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xEBwBhds
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I'm not rude, merely precise. NATO never would have accepted Ukraine but now that Russia has invaded Ukraine if the Russians get kicked out it might just happen. See also: Finland, Sweden. Note that since you claim you are Dutch: it's amazing that given your access to news sources that you should be carrying water for a party that does not exactly have your best interests at heart, and I'm saying that as someone who has lived in a country under Russian occupation.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Isn't that unusual given how quick all the officials and media are to blame just one side of the conflict (we know which one) for everything, with or without evidence? Does it really matter who's doing the shelling? The shelling is fundamentally happening because Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of aggression. (The IAEA is likely not all that equipped to determine the source of artillery fire. That's not really their thing.)
- meeuwer 3y ago
  > The safety and security officials will allow the agency to possibly perform a forensic evaluation of shelling that has occurred at the plant, Bloomberg reported. This evaluation could be used to hold attackers of the plant responsible for the damage it has received. [1] It's unclear what happened to the planned 'forensic evaluation', but somehow there was no further interest in holding attackers responsible. > Does it really matter who's doing the shelling? Sure it does. The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart when your, cough, ally is the one attempting "nuclear blackmail" against you. I for one don't want to help things escalate to the "together into the abyss" stage [2], not for any reason, least of all because someone's intergenerational vendetta went off the rails. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/international/3615324-international-nuclear-agency-getting-wider-powers-to-probe-attacks-on-ukraine-power-plant/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/3615324-internation... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_conflict_escalation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_c...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart It really doesn't. There'd be precisely zero shelling near the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant if Russia hadn't invaded anyone. They clearly bear the lion's weight of responsibility here, and they additionally have a vested interest in using the plant as cover for their forces. The IAEA isn't going to rock the boat, as criminal responsiblity isn't their mission; keeping the plant safe is. Getting thrown out by the Russians won't help that mission any; any criticisms are going to be... cautious. (Like the ones in https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-192-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-192-iae...; "The IAEA experts also need access to all six turbine halls together. However, they were only granted partial access to the turbine hall of reactor unit 2 on 27 October, after earlier the same month receiving similarly restrictive access to the turbine halls of units 1 and 4.")

jacquesm 3y ago

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

meeuwer 3y ago
> ... it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. If, for example, someone phrased their political argument as a series of questions — but provided sources to back up said questions, or has raised logical arguments in said questions — then it is not enough to dismiss the argument as "just asking questions". So, the IAEA and Grossi either can't establish where the shells are fired from (hard to believe given the prolonged and intensive nature of the shelling and the amount of evidence) or are hesitant / not allowed to incriminate the party they believe is responsible.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  No, they can but it isn't relevant. Let me spell it out for you: no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant.
  - andreygrehov 3y ago
    > no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant If we apply the same logic of no A : no B, then "Russian invasion" would be the B in some other equation, e.g., no A : no Russian invasion. What would that A be?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      You're not making any sense.
      - andreygrehov 3y ago
        You sound fairly confident in all of your responses, but as soon as the question leads to anything less convenient, you bail. I encourage you to spend less time watching/reading the mass media news.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, god forbid someone is actually informed. > I encourage you to spend less time watching/reading the mass media news. Thank you for your life advice.
  - meeuwer 3y ago
    First, no need to be rude. Second, a certain Mr. Stoltenberg would like to add a prequel to your non sequitur: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xEBwBhds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xEBwBhds
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I'm not rude, merely precise. NATO never would have accepted Ukraine but now that Russia has invaded Ukraine if the Russians get kicked out it might just happen. See also: Finland, Sweden. Note that since you claim you are Dutch: it's amazing that given your access to news sources that you should be carrying water for a party that does not exactly have your best interests at heart, and I'm saying that as someone who has lived in a country under Russian occupation.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Isn't that unusual given how quick all the officials and media are to blame just one side of the conflict (we know which one) for everything, with or without evidence? Does it really matter who's doing the shelling? The shelling is fundamentally happening because Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of aggression. (The IAEA is likely not all that equipped to determine the source of artillery fire. That's not really their thing.)

meeuwer 3y ago
> The safety and security officials will allow the agency to possibly perform a forensic evaluation of shelling that has occurred at the plant, Bloomberg reported. This evaluation could be used to hold attackers of the plant responsible for the damage it has received. [1] It's unclear what happened to the planned 'forensic evaluation', but somehow there was no further interest in holding attackers responsible. > Does it really matter who's doing the shelling? Sure it does. The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart when your, cough, ally is the one attempting "nuclear blackmail" against you. I for one don't want to help things escalate to the "together into the abyss" stage [2], not for any reason, least of all because someone's intergenerational vendetta went off the rails. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/international/3615324-international-nuclear-agency-getting-wider-powers-to-probe-attacks-on-ukraine-power-plant/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/3615324-internation... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_conflict_escalation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_c...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart It really doesn't. There'd be precisely zero shelling near the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant if Russia hadn't invaded anyone. They clearly bear the lion's weight of responsibility here, and they additionally have a vested interest in using the plant as cover for their forces. The IAEA isn't going to rock the boat, as criminal responsiblity isn't their mission; keeping the plant safe is. Getting thrown out by the Russians won't help that mission any; any criticisms are going to be... cautious. (Like the ones in https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-192-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-192-iae...; "The IAEA experts also need access to all six turbine halls together. However, they were only granted partial access to the turbine hall of reactor unit 2 on 27 October, after earlier the same month receiving similarly restrictive access to the turbine halls of units 1 and 4.")